Abstract [en]

This study is about how teachers of history at different upper secondary schools in Uppsala think and talk about the role language plays in the classroom and in education in general. In order to find this out, interviews were carried out with five teachers of history at four different upper secondary schools in Uppsala. This study has an analysis of the statements by and interviews with the teachers in a wide context by using a previous study carried out in Uppsala, which categorizes the upper secondary schools of Uppsala into a social field based upon what assets their students have. These assets are estimated by using Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic, social and cultural capital. The statements by the teachers are thus analyzed using this previous study as a background.

The study shows that the teachers involved all agree that language use is the most important aspect of teaching. The teachers also agree about the fact that when it comes to history as a subject, one of the most important parts related to language is the terminology used. However, there is a difference between teachers working at schools with students who do not possess as many assets of language and teachers working at schools with students who have a great many assets. Spoken language is used more deliberately in teaching at schools with low-achievers, and written language is used more deliberately at schools with high-achievers.

The study also shows how teachers in their grading indirectly assign grades based on the students’ language skills, since a more developed language allows for a deeper and more coherent analysis of the subject matter.

In the light of previous studies, the present study shows how low-achievers are more or less unable to reach higher grades due to the lack of language assets, the grading criteria and the way in which education is carried out, whereas high-achievers are more likely to reach higher grades based on their linguistic capabilities.